When it comes to Satanism, it all comes down to how that individual communicates their definition of what "Satanism" is. For example, is it hocus pocus or is it rooted in self meaning and gratification? Spirituality can have many twists and turns and the spiritual Satanist will run into many road blockages as a theistic Satanist will when coming head to head with an atheistic Satanist.

For these reasons, it's to be highly suggested, that when one speaks up their spiritually or non-spiritually inclined path of Satanism, they should first have knowledge of the other. Much like when a Satanist takes their stand against a xtian. There are values coming from both sides and even if one doesn't accept the other side for anything but gibberish, there must be an understanding of that side in order to have anything to stand on when going toe to toe. Also, it is important to understand that the more you know about an opposite stance, the better off you are.

If these things are not stated in a way that is understandable to the other side, whether that side chooses to see it as valid or not, then there is usually an inclination to fight rather than discuss what each side is about.

Note: I know this is a very basic idea that I am posting about. Thus my placing it in 101 rather than anywhere else. Also, yes, a version of this IS posted elsewhere. However, I like input, if any, from different sides of the court so to speak sometimes.

I like to learn as much as I can about anything that I can, but why bother "squaring off" with anyone over their beliefs? What benefit will it bring to me? Is there any productive outcome?

Also, I don't think that the "hocus pocus" is dependent on or limited to theistic or spiritual Satanism. This has been discussed before many times, but lacking an explanation for Magic makes it no less real. We don't need to jump to illogical conclusions about the source of Magical workings. If you did it, you did it. It doesn't matter HOW it works, it only matters THAT it works.

_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

Whichever way you go about the debate though, each side must keep in mind that they will not usually see eye to eye and trying to change the opinion of someone who is an Atheist/Theist, is not the better option for either party.

Personally, I do not see a point in claiming sides. As nearly everyone knows quite well, I am a hater of adjectives. (Perhaps from lessons learned in a previous arena of debate.) I believe that they are simply used as a reason to fight rather than have a civil debate. However, many go on a life long journey throughout every dictionary or book there is to be able to answer, "what type of Satanist are you?". Why this is? That is subjective to the individual trying to cross the bridge from saying "I am a Satanist, I choose this label for myself and while acknowledging it, I will live my life in the fashion I deem Satanically acceptable" to "I am ______ Satanist. I have these doctrines and these tenets because I follow everything to T and that's just what fits me ftm".

Whichever road you choose to make, communication is extremely important. Not just what you are choosing to say but also, how you approach the matter. If you choose to address the matter at all.

Originally Posted By: mountaingoat

What benefit will it bring to me? Is there any productive outcome?

Actually, if you choose to have a go around or a discussion with someone that is of another shade of Satanism, it CAN be extremely beneficial to you. Especially if you are the type of person that would like to get to know about it all. Seeing from anothers perspective, if they can communicate it correctly (or ya know, don't miss half of their thread in the making of a post like I did), can help you understand that side a bit more properly. Even if you do not accept it.

The unproductive outcome of a debate or discuss only comes to pass when it becomes an argument and the points are lost in semantic details. Or, in other words, the go around becomes fisticuffs.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

Why can't it be both? Whenever we get hard choices like this, there is almost certainly a better alternative than either. And we are expected to embody that very alternative.

Would you want to fly a flag under something considered "hocus pocus" in nature? It SHOULD be rooted, in all shades of Satanism, in self meaning and gratification. Sure, there may be an alternative and it's choice to find one. I am not expected to embody anything that I can dismiss. If I dismiss hocus pocus, I am permitted to do so.

Originally Posted By: Alko

There are not always "two sides to every issue." That statement is a ridiculous slogan invoked by vested interests and perpetuated by minds of limited scope.

In matters of signification concern, there is invariably another alternative: a THIRD SIDE, a Satanic side. ASL

Of course and within Satanism there is more than two sides as well. Of which this post is talking about the communication capabilities between all of them.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

What do you mean when you say "sprituality"? Assuming you are using the word the way most people tend to, all you are talking about is a semantic ghost.

I am actually going to try to tackle this one down for you. From my understanding, there are many different perspectives of what "spirituality" really is. There are those that take it down to an almost mystics understanding of it.. thus, the "semantic ghost" and there are others that actually ride on the back of "Spiritual Satanism". It seems a bit early on in my discussions with individuals that claim this but what I gather, is that the spiritual side of Satanism is very much of self and soul. Spiritual Satanists that I have ran into rarely claim Atheism and there is even one that doesn't claim either side.

When I say that spirituality can have twists and turns, this is what I am talking about. Even the concept of spirituality can't be tied down by a single person except by that person's subjective holding on the word.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

Magic consists of using these wicked spirits ourselves, rather than being used by means of them. If you believe anything is "true", then you have been duped by super-intelligent black magicians.

It's interesting to me that you can hop and skip from asking me what spiritualism is to inputting that we are to "use these wicked spirits". If you don't mind me asking, what "wicked spirits" am I supposed to be using again? Where do they come from? What permits them to exist if they do really exist? They don't look like clowns right? I have some issues with clowns.

I make it a point to question everything. For the most part I tend to over think things. Sometimes, this is where a problem lies for me. Something that is important for you to get out, is not always as important to the next person to read. Although, I do suggest you read the last half of this thread that was left out by mistake. On any account, if you are already all the way down here, perhaps you already have.

If you don't mind me asking, what "wicked spirits" am I supposed to be using again?

Semantic ghosts, of course. Little men who aren't there. I'm not hopping around, it's a continuous train of thought. Devils and spooks are tricks of the brain. Learn to do these tricks, instead of falling for them.

Quote:

Where do they come from?

Your brain, your genes, the formative experiences of our species over millions of years. And thus, also, his brain, her brain, their brains. Which is very convenient when you go to manipulate yourself and others.

Quote:

What permits them to exist if they do really exist?

They don't exist, except in our shared consciousness of language and instinct. This is what makes them so powerful.

Quote:

They don't look like clowns right?

Exactly like clowns.

Quote:

I have some issues with clowns.

Enormous stinking circus clowns, with fire in their eyes.

Quote:

Would you want to fly a flag under something considered "hocus pocus" in nature?

I want to fly a flag "in the midst of your palaces".

Quote:

Of course and within Satanism there is more than two sides as well.

I don't think there are. Firstly "everyone I know who is right always agrees with me." But beyond that, just because Army plays Navy, or Charlie outgames Dog, doesn't mean that our armed services are actually having an insurrection.

We like to fight! We need practice. There's no hard feelings involved, or if there are, it's somebody else's problem, not mine.

Quote:

Even the concept of spirituality can't be tied down by a single person except by that person's subjective holding on the word.

Right, because it's all in your head. You are the sole authority on the contents of your own brain. So why not fill it with useful things, rather than things that enslave you?

Originally Posted By: Anton Szandor LaVey

The "intellectual decompression chamber" of the Satanic temple might be considered a training school for temporary ignorance, as are ALL religious services! The difference is that the Satanist KNOWS he is practicing a form of contrived ignorance in order to expand his will, whereas another religionist doesn't - or if he does know, he practices that form of self-deceit which forbids such recognition. His ego is already too shaky from his religious inculcation to allow himself to admit to such a thing as self-imposed ignorance!

Anything you "believe" can and will be used against you.

Quote:

Alexander Hammilton

Super-intelligent black magician; invented the Federal Reserve. Paraphrasing Ben Franklin of the Hellfire Club. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Oh boy, I think I am going to have issues with these wicked spirits. I don't really have much use for stinky clowns with fire in their eyes. You can keep that. I am going to go lurk your magic thread in a moment but I think I should mention, that when I read of the usage of wicked spirits, it seems as though you are speaking of external entities.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

Magic consists of using these wicked spirits ourselves, rather than being used by means of them.

This ^^^^

Otherwise, if it is not an external but rather an internal as you suggest:

Originally Posted By: Aklo

They don't exist, except in our shared consciousness of language and instinct.

Here^^^^^

Then I would only have to say that it seems to me that you might just very well pegged a spiritualists viewpoint (at least from what I have gathered from spiritualists that I have had discussions with previously on the same topic) on magic and my explanation is not needed further in that subject. (Spirituality that is. ;D)

Originally Posted By: Aklo

I want to fly a flag "in the midst of your palaces".

I almost don't want to ask but curiosity strikes me. Whatever do you mean by this? Forgive my lack of follow, if you will.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

I don't think there are. Firstly "everyone I know who is right always agrees with me." But beyond that, just because Army plays Navy, or Charlie outgames Dog, doesn't mean that our armed services are actually having an insurrection.

We like to fight! We need practice. There's no hard feelings involved, or if there are, it's somebody else's problem, not mine.

You don't think that there are other people out there that see Satanism in a different light than you do? Are you missing the various adjectives thrown around? Heh, I understand the concept though, of your Satanism being the only Satanism because you said so. It's relative to you, it works for you, kudos for you.

We DO need debate, we DO need fighting but only to a certain degree. I can agree and jump on the gravy train that sometimes fighting is just as usable in life as getting along..

BUT

If you are debating or fighting over something and you can't even remember how it started, how is it of any use to anyone? I don't advocate hugging (in fact, I'm one of those "don't touch me types", so I'd prefer all riders keep their hands to themselves) but I don't advocate useless bickering either. (At least I try not to.)

There's no hard feelings on my side and in this instance, for example, I would not consider this bickering nor fighting. Maybe not even debate. I've become accustomed to seeing you around my threads, for whatever purpose you may have for it.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

Anything you "believe" can and will be used against you.

Hey, by all means, hold it against me. I certainly do. xD Furthermore, I encourage critiquing as it provides a lot more for me than it may seem. If it doesn't hold up, then it's back to drawing board for something stronger eh?

This girl, her bf wanted to do her in the butt. She was like No Way. He's like Why not? Why not? She says Cause it'll HURT! He goes No it won't! and she says Yes it will! and so on. Finally he says Well if it hurts, I will stop. She makes him promise.

So they get to doing it, at first it's just like, Weird. But OK. But then she starts to feel warm, then it's like, ripping, burning, like OW OW OW STOP IT HURTS IT HURTS STOP YOU PROMISED IT HURTS IT HURTS!

No it doesn't! he says, IT FEELS GRRREAT!

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Then shut up.If you do not take a side then you are standing in the middle of the street and will be hit by a truck.

"The unproductive outcome of a debate or discuss only comes to pass when it becomes an argument and the points are lost in semantic details. Or, in other words, the go around becomes fisticuffs."

A debate or discussion on the internet will not ever come to a fist fight unless someone gets off their fat ass and goes over to someones house.

"Of course and within Satanism there is more than two sides as well. Of which this post is talking about the communication capabilities between all of them."

Most people here are not hippy tree hugging equality for all Satanists. "We" (in general) on this site, don't give shit about converting other people, or communicating with all the idiots that think they are Satanists. Most people who think they are Satanists are not Satanists. If you have to work so hard at convincing people of who and what you are, you are not and you failed.

"Another curious question, where else do you know of me?"

It's the internet, if you did something stupid, someone will find it and out it in your face.

I find it kinda offensive for you to be posting MCOS bullshit here. I and mean most people here don't go there and post copies of 600club threads there. Maybe you should read the forums more, look into our threads instead of spewing repeat garbage and complaints here.

Next.....

Morgan

Oh, and by the way in regards to helping newbies. I do help some on occasion. Hell the book I wrote is even on your recommend reading list at the MCOS. I guess you just don;t pay much attention anywhere.

_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear Fuck em if they can't take a jokeDon't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass

I by and large don't like theistic satanists but I put this down to there 11 yr old reading level and the ability of articulation equivalent of a retarded chipmunk. I cannot tell if the general consensus of the thread is a rejection of what people here define as theistic or spiritual Satanism.

But there are a few self described theistic satanists I am friends with. I might be new here but before you bite my head off I'll ask you to define theistic Satanism in a way so it doesn't include notions of collective unconsciousness/neo-platic consciousness and other such non empirically verified notions of shared consciousness and if you don't do that then try this shit on Aquino.

I would consider that organisation one of theistic satanist at least in the place where I draw the line and what I consider theism. But I wouldn't insult his intelligence or what he is manifested which is more then anyone present in this thread.

But perhaps I misunderstood and it is just the self designators spiritual/theistic as meaningless concepts attached to the word satanist or Satanism which you consider meaningless in and of themselves. If that is the case I'll leave you to the argument because I've got more genuine things to be personally invested in then self descriptors I don't believe hold any meaning.

But there are a few self described theistic satanists I am friends with. I might be new here but before you bite my head off I'll ask you to define theistic Satanism in a way so it doesn't include notions of collective unconsciousness/neo-platic consciousness and other such non empirically verified notions of shared consciousness and if you don't do that then try this shit on Aquino.

A point of order here... don't assume. If you took the time to read the threads here, you'd find that NO ONE is beyond question in The 600 Club Forum, Dr. Aquino being no exception. He has indeed been challenged on the grounds of what are perceived to be theistic and/or spiritualistic ideologies by several people and, to his credit, he has responded. That doesn't mean that what he or anyone else has to say will be given any special treatment. We don't coddle here.

NO MEMBER is above question. Not me, not Dr. Aquino, nor any other regular member, Familiar or Moderator. People who come here and remain here are people who can think on their feet and speak about their beliefs without expecting others to just agree with them. Sheep belong in a herd... not the 600 Club.

Me neither, but I'll do it anyway. Morgan has a point though, but keep in mind nothing is limited with a choice of left and right, you can also jump over the proverbial truck, down, double flick-flack, slide past it or simply run away from it. People will always try and label and categorize, just make sure you have certain traits to mess a bit with their minds.

Then I would only have to say that it seems to me that you might just very well pegged a spiritualists viewpoint (at least from what I have gathered from spiritualists that I have had discussions with previously on the same topic)

If you say so? But if so, there's a huge problem. You see, words have meaning. They don't just mean whatever we want, not without a lot of work at least.

The word spiritualist already means "idiot easily fooled by things like table-tapping; believer in ectoplasm and other pseudo-science; person who consistently uses the word 'energy' to mean something other than 'the capacity to do work'; ghost-worshipper; member of a category which Houdini, Crowley, Randi et al have long-since codified methods for exposing as crooks and / or deluded dupes".

What your set appear to be groping for, is a term midway between "Atheist" and "theist". You ran into this same problem with "deist", which is also already in use to mean specific things other than wishy-washy.

May I suggest "pantheist"? It is already doing the job for billions of people, if you use it this way, your meaning will be understood. Some people prefer "panentheist" on this score, but it's a very fine line.

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

...person who consistently uses the word 'energy' to mean something other than 'the capacity to do work'...

I'm glad I am not the only person who notices people's tendency to do this. I witness it all the time and it is annoying. Thank you.

My pleasure

The problem seems to be rooted in the layman experience with electric current as "power". Simplifications of Einstein used to promote nuclear technology for genocide back in the 40's tend to exacerbate this. The non-physicist tends to think of electrons and photons as "energy", but they aren't; they are just a means, in the form of current and EM fields, of transferring a lot of energy. E=MC², contrary to popular belief, doesn't mean that matter "is" energy, or can be "turned into" energy, but rather that the total amount of energy being used to "prop up" a quantum field of matter can be be measured, and can be released for other purposes at the cost of no longer supporting the original field.

This gets to be a huge problem in the occult world, though, because we know that our nervous system and personal EM field are also made of electrons and photons. The electricity involved isn't current though, it's static, and it has very little actual energy! Barely enough to flicker a lightbulb, certainly not enough to do any effective magic tricks like levitation etc. What it does carry, though, in a fairly inefficient way, is information. Anyone wanting to do real science with things like "ghosts" and "auras" needs to understand this and work accordingly.

But the results thus far are unimpressive. I can read auras. When I first started doing this, I followed the traditional methods, crossing my eyes and looking for particular colors and so forth. But once I had enough practice to be totally familiar with the system, its advantages and disadvantages, then I found it necessary to phase in the key factor in divination.

And that means, it isn't really science. It's just psychology. Once we reach this conclusion for ourselves about particular methods, it's actually very liberating. If something is primarily in our heads, then it can be whatever we want it to be! Complex rigmarole like making a particular size circle, dancing around a podium-shaped altar assuming various god-forms and intoning exact "vibrations" of ancient rubrics, can be replaced with standing in front of a naked lady lying on a coffee table and blaspheming, which is actually more exciting. It's a win-win situation!

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

I think it is actually essential to study spiritual traditions of the LHP if one wishes to gain more knowledge and history regarding the subjects. The LHP did originate in a spiritual practice and the red line of traditions runs from then and into our days where some of these traditions are still alive and practiced. I’m not talking about spiritual Satanism but about Tantric Hinduism from where the concept of the LHP originates. Its old Buddhist branch is also still alive. To fully understand where the concepts come from it is indeed essential to study these things. Otherwise you won’t know your own history.

With that being said there has been produced good writings by spiritual Satanists as well as by people with similar ideas to those of the spiritual Satanist. But I don’t think we should stop there. Oftentimes I find that the best way to learn is to study things that you think is totally opposite of what you yourself might think is right. That way you expand your horizon so to speak and even if you end up agreeing with them or not you will have more knowledge to form your own philosophy in relation to it.

What I tend to have a hard time with though is people who have a head-up-their-own-asses attitude. And this goes for theists, atheists and everyone else. No branch of religion or philosophy is an exception. We have the ranting and raving LaVeyans (Satanic Bible thumpers), we have the crazy spiritual Satanists (with claims of belonging to an ancient tradition and thus being true Satanists) and everyone in between.

On the energy debate I use the word all the time in reference to modern sub-atomic science. I always try to be careful and state that I’m not sure if energy is the right word to use from a scientific point of view. I do enjoy reading some of the literature on chaos theory and other related concepts but I am not scientist or physician myself.

If you do not take a side then you are standing in the middle of the street and will be hit by a truck.

Originally Posted By: Dimitri

Morgan has a point though, but keep in mind nothing is limited with a choice of left and right, you can also jump over the proverbial truck, down, double flick-flack, slide past it or simply run away from it. People will always try and label and categorize

'Nuff said. However, since I like to be wordy, I'm going to add on to it to avoid being a copy and paste model. I'm afraid you misunderstand the point to my avoidance of adjectives here. Seems to me that not labeling myself is a problem to certain people and that's just fine. The point here is I'm against unnecessary fighting. If there's, no point. There's no point. Period.

Originally Posted By: Morgan

A debate or discussion on the internet will not ever come to a fist fight unless someone gets off their fat ass and goes over to someones house.

Weirder things have happened.

Originally Posted By: Morgan

Most people here are not hippy tree hugging equality for all Satanists. "We" (in general) on this site, don't give shit about converting other people, or communicating with all the idiots that think they are Satanists. Most people who think they are Satanists are not Satanists. If you have to work so hard at convincing people of who and what you are, you are not and you failed.

I'm not that friendly with the woods myself and I DO bring a fight to something I deem worthy of fighting for. And I agree with your last statement of trying to convince people. Luckily for me, that's not what this post was actually about.

Originally Posted By: Morgan

I find it kinda offensive for you to be posting MCOS bullshit here. I and mean most people here don't go there and post copies of 600club threads there.

Actually, this is not a thread from MCoS. However, how is it offensive for me to post something from MCoS here? Especially if it's only to get different spin of others opinions of that thread? What is accepted somewhere else is not always accepted here. That was something I respected about this site.

Another thing, MCoS members from 600 DO post their recycled posts from 600 club. No one is paying attention to anything! What a mad, mad world. For example, The Fire. Which if you search for here, you'll find written by Dan_Dread. Which he has posted here, MCoS AND SatanicInternationalNetwork. All receiving different replies or the same depending on the crowd of people.

Originally Posted By: Morgan

Oh, and by the way in regards to helping newbies. I do help some on occasion. Hell the book I wrote is even on your recommend reading list at the MCOS. I guess you just don;t pay much attention anywhere.

I never stated that you didn't. In fact, I believe it was Alko that dug up the quote of yours from the "Selling Your Soul" thread where you bashed the hell out of that "newbie". I asked what you would do but you didn't actually answer until now. And you're right, I don't pay a lot of attention to MCoS. Especially recently, since I resigned from MCoS a month or two ago.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

The word spiritualist already means "idiot easily fooled by things like table-tapping; believer in ectoplasm and other pseudo-science; person who consistently uses the word 'energy' to mean something other than 'the capacity to do work'; ghost-worshipper; member of a category which Houdini, Crowley, Randi et al have long-since codified methods for exposing as crooks and / or deluded dupes".

Originally Posted By: Alko

You see, words have meaning. They don't just mean whatever we want

I must apologize because here I thought "spiritualist" was a person whom...

Quote:

World English Dictionaryspiritualism (ˈspɪrɪtjʊəˌlɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n1. the belief that the disembodied spirits of the dead, surviving in another world, can communicate with the living in this world, esp through mediums2. the doctrines and practices associated with this belief3. philosophy the belief that because reality is to some extent immaterial it is therefore spiritual4. any doctrine (in philosophy, religion, etc) that prefers the spiritual to the material5. the condition or quality of being spiritual

My bad. Words DO have meaning.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

May I suggest "pantheist"?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep that in mind.

Originally Posted By: Aklo

And that means, it isn't really science. It's just psychology. Once we reach this conclusion for ourselves about particular methods, it's actually very liberating.

Psychology = Social Sciences? I don't know, that's what my teacher told me. Should I re-look that up? Nahhh.. I took Social Sciences in college.

Originally Posted By: TheInsane

What I tend to have a hard time with though is people who have a head-up-their-own-asses attitude. And this goes for theists, atheists and everyone else.

Whereas if you had taken either a real arts OR a real science degree, you would at least be able to express yourself clearly in writing, eschewing this weird dressed-up vocabulary for example. Part of the reason I posted your netradio adventure is so that people could see that you don't sound so freakishly quasi-literate in person.

Your teacher lied. She's an academic, that's her job, to grease the material and slide it into your head by any means necessary. Karl Popper has demonstrated quite conclusively that psychology (as opposed to psychiatry and psychopharmacology) is a pseudoscience.

If you can't answer, or don't know, Popper's work, then you seriously aren't qualified to speak with any authority on science OR philosophy OR the soft studies in between.

Quote:

World English Dictionary

They are just being polite, ma'am. Let's walk through this gently:

Quote:

1. the belief that the disembodied spirits of the dead, surviving in another world, can communicate with the living in this world, esp through mediums

equals

Quote:

idiot easily fooled by things like table-tapping;

and

Quote:

2. the doctrines and practices associated with this belief

equals

Quote:

believer in ectoplasm and other pseudo-science;

and

Quote:

3. philosophy the belief that because reality is to some extent immaterial it is therefore spiritual

equals

Quote:

person who consistently uses the word 'energy' to mean something other than 'the capacity to do work';

and

Quote:

4. any doctrine (in philosophy, religion, etc) that prefers the spiritual to the material

equals

Quote:

ghost-worshipper;

and

Quote:

5. the condition or quality of being spiritual

equals

Quote:

member of a category which Houdini, Crowley, Randi et al have long-since codified methods for exposing as crooks and / or deluded dupes.

But no one can show it to you, if you don't want to see it; so it may be that all I am accomplishing is showing you to it. I'm content with that.

Quote:

The point here is I'm against unnecessary fighting. If there's, no point. There's no point. Period.

What's "unecessary" about it? If you were paying attention you will have noticed that in my Enochian thread, Dmitri is being argumentative and prickly without even reading what he responds to, with hardly any useful content per se. On the other hand, he has served as a vehicle to promote discussion of several important factors in the question, such as the magic of Freddy "just another monkey" Nietzche and the skepticism of Don "I disbelieve this so hard I will produce the foremost literalist reference in the field" Laycock.

So, I greatly value his contributions to the thread. Somebody may have mentioned to you already, that "this place is what you make of it."

Quote:

I'm afraid you misunderstand the point to my avoidance of adjectives here. Seems to me that not labeling myself is a problem to certain people and that's just fine.

I actually favor one of those labels myself, one I don't see you paying any attention to: autotheist. But I don't see it as an adjective, it's a synonym. And that's why I don't think there really are different "types", and why I quote Lady Mal.

But that doesn't mean that people of the various "belief" systems aren't worth reading or talking to, far from it. Just because they don't get it, doesn't mean it can't get them.

Originally Posted By: thedeadidea

I by and large don't like theistic satanists but I put this down to there 11 yr old reading level

I laughed so hard

Quote:

and the ability of articulation equivalent of a retarded chipmunk.

that my drink came out my nose.

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

You will forgive me if I don't work that hard, there isn't really that much controversy in what I am saying.

Originally Posted By: Jim Manzi, City Journal, "What Social Science Does -- and Doesn't -- Know"

But the situation was even worse: it was clear that we wouldn’t know which economists were right even after the fact. Suppose that on February 1, 2009, Famous Economist X had predicted: “In two years, unemployment will be about 8 percent if we pass the stimulus bill, but about 10 percent if we don’t.” What do you think would happen when 2011 rolled around and unemployment was still at 10 percent, despite the passage of the bill? It’s a safe bet that Professor X would say something like: “Yes, but other conditions deteriorated faster than anticipated, so if we hadn’t passed the stimulus bill, unemployment would have been more like 12 percent. So I was right: the bill reduced unemployment by about 2 percent.”

The problem, as Popper has pointed out so well, is that the soft studies haven't arrived at a depth of knowledge that will allow for falsifiability.

Here he is on psychology, the real target here, though he could just as easily be talking about the different "spiritual" models for magic:

Originally Posted By: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact — that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed — which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

I could be wrong though; I try to learn something new every day. Please introduce a "social science" that you feel has had sufficient range of experiment to falsify itself, and thoroughly failed to do so.

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

[to Aklo] I think many of the social sciences do build the scientific method. Can you please show us examples of where you think it doesn't?

This is a funfoodfight to just observe from a safe distance, but I will contribute ...

When it was time for me to do my dissertation, I decided that I wanted to attempt a political forecast of Germany (then still E&W). Armed with all of my academic-level membership tools of the World Future Society, I embarked. Got partway through my first draft when my committee chairman took me behind the woodshed and said, "You can't do a forecast, because politics are discrete - a function of human free will - and thus cannot be predicted in the same way that natural scientific principles can be."

"So why is our discipline called 'Political Science'?"

"Because we use analytical frameworks to examine and explain historical political events. Strictly speaking, we should be called the 'Political History Department'."

"But I think I have enough tools (trend-extrapolation, cross-matrixes, eco/environmental constraints, etc.) to produce a valid political forecast." *

"No, you don't and you can't. Your dissertation violates the boundaries of this discipline, which is acceptably limited to the historical. It, and you, will be burned at the stake by the faculty. Do a proper historical analysis and get your Ph.D. absent the Inquisition. Why don't you do the neutron bomb?"

The point here is actually the same one that is at the heart of Setian philosophy: that the isolate self consciousness is entirely distinct from and alien to nature (what we call the "Objective Universe"), and that the entire system of "natural law" (predictability, consistency, replicability, etc.) is limited to OU phenomena. Thus the OU cannot help doing what it does, and has no option to do otherwise. The ba/psyche, on the other hand, always confronts its absolute freedom of will, and the impossibility of its inclusion in or absorption by the OU. [Hence the various conventional religions which all promote & promise such an illusion, and materialist "OUisms" which try to deconstruct consciousness into mere bodily stimulus/response.]

At this metalevel of inquiry, theorists like Karl Popper are shown to be merely strawman-erectors, who predesign/limit their jigsaw-puzzles and then put on a great show of logically/reasonably assembling them.

As previously discussed, each incarnate consciousness exists in a state of confusion, because whilst it may be essentially distinct from the OU, it is temporarily integrated with an OU host - the physical body - through which it interacts with the rest of the OU and gains preliminary awareness of its own existence as "that which is not 'all otherness'". And most noninitiates stop right there, if indeed they have ventured to be even this introspective.

So coming back to the central focus of this thread, "science" is a term for discovering and codifying "natural law" pertinent to the OU.

"Psychology" is not really a "pseudoscience". It focuses on the stimulus/response aspect of the incarnated psyche, to identify and quantify how particular stimuli & combinations thereof tend to elicit patterns of response. So it is, and is limited to the study of the psyche's "enslavement" to its OU surroundings.

Indeed if anything is to be exposed as "pseudoscience", it is psychiatry - except within the strict study of mind-processing disfunctions caused by physical bodily damage, disease, or other OU impairment. Limiting itself to OU scientific technology and "natural law", psychiatry can not even apprehend, much less draw any valid conclusions concerning the psyche itself. Psychiatry seeks to discover and impose "natural law" on a phenomenon that is neither part of it nor subject to it.

* I was going through an intense Albert Somit phase at the time. I finally got to do my Germany-forecast in 1987 at the National Defense University, and it worked.

LOL! I used to have people argue with me about the "hard sciences" vs the "soft sciences," and one of the major "proofs" of the hard science advocates was that "NUMBERS DON'T LIE."

Well... having handled numbers for years in a corporate setting, preparing budgets, analyzing expenditures, and predicting growth vs loss, I can tell you that numbers not only LIE, but a skillful handler can make them roll over and whistle Dixie.

Well... having handled numbers for years in a corporate setting, preparing budgets, analyzing expenditures, and predicting growth vs loss, I can tell you that numbers not only LIE, but a skillful handler can make them roll over and whistle Dixie.

Right there with ya, Jake - I'm doing a lot of "creative presentation" now

except within the strict study of mind-processing disfunctions caused by physical bodily damage, disease, or other OU impairment.

That is psychiatry in its qualification as a science! Freud was a working psychiatrist, but whenever he talks out his ass, we call it psychology.

This is the whole point of making the distinction. When it prescribes drugs, methods, or other exercises to improve the function of damaged minds, it can be tested and falsified and continually improved. When it speculates on well minds outside its personal control, it becomes a social "science".

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Well, I didn’t want to get into a big debate on the subject since I do not have enough knowledge in the area to make a great argument. However as I see it there will always be a problem in researching human actions since we all are humans already. The observer is the observed. And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

I think in a lot of ways psychiatry may be as effective as any hard science though. They can develop theories and methods that work. We may not know why and the very idea behind it may be wrong but it does work in execution. You can actually make the same argument with physics although physicists notoriously think they have the answers if their tests come out positive but the truth is that its still only theories and they change all the time. The method for calculating something may work but the main idea may still be wrong. Compare modern physics to that of 25 years ago and then compared to 50, 75 and 100 years ago. In some cases they could predict things pretty accurately 100 years ago even if the theory behind it, by todays standards, were actually wrong.

As I read up on falsifiability I came across this interesting notion regarding Karl Popper. He said that for a theory to be scientific it has to be (1) falsifiable and (2) be confirmed by some kind of observation. The critique is however that this in itself is not something that can be falsifiable.

As I said I don’t have enough knowledge in the subject at hand so I won’t go in for a big debate on it. Still its an interesting subject to give some though.

The difference between hard science and soft science is not so much the applying of the scientific method. I would even say Aklo missed the ball quite badly when he said the likes of psychology do not apply the method.

The difference between hard and soft science would be the observational part. In hard science like physics and chemistry things can be perceived, i.e. you can see electricity jumping from an anode to a kathode, you can mix 2 colorless compounts and see the mixture change color or explode or.. In soft sciences like psychology not everything is that outlined or very observeable. There needs a very thorough looking at certain traits/behavior, the combination of certain traits/behaviors and an analytical study for each case, whereas in hard science one simple observation is almost sufficient to make conclusions.

Both fields apply the scientific method, it is a universal procedure which is (..or should be..if only people would do it) applied in ANY field. But what makes the hard sciences "hard" and the soft sciences "soft"? Fields like chemistry and physics have observations which need very thorough explanations and require a lot more data and background information then a simple psychologist will ever need in his entire life. It is true that fields like psychology need very thorough examinations of the subject, but once a certain syndrom or pattern is found it simply is "pulling up labels and trying to solve it without much problems". This (where psychology stops, i.e. the recognition of patterns) is were the fields of mathematics, physicists, chemists, biologists,.. simply start.

But science is science, some find it fruitfull to distinguish between hard and soft, I prefer to have the knowledge keep sipping in without any set borders. At one point or another, the 2 will eventually overlap.

As you said in some hard science it is easier because you can observe something happening. Allthough this is not always true either. Modern physics do create theories not because they can see the action but only because they can see the reaction, and sometimes not even the first reaction. It is an interesting subject for sure.

However, the two sciences do overlap and has to do so if we share the belief that we are all essentially part of the natural world (of course Dr. Aquino would not agree on that).

The difference between hard and soft science would be the observational part. In hard science like physics and chemistry things can be perceived, i.e. you can see electricity jumping from an anode to a kathode, you can mix 2 colorless compounts and see the mixture change color or explode or..

In soft sciences like psychology not everything is that outlined or very observeable. There needs a very thorough looking at certain traits/behavior, the combination of certain traits/behaviors and an analytical study for each case, whereas in hard science one simple observation is almost sufficient to make conclusions.

Tomayto, tomahto. The lack of depth knowledge attributed here to observation is certainly what is preventing the successful use of falsifiability among the honest. But I apologize if my comments have led anyone to believe that I don't think any of the soft studies are trying to follow the scientific method.

Here's a nice example from the text I'm cribbing of criminology trying hard:

Originally Posted By: Manzi

In 1981 and 1982, Lawrence Sherman, a respected criminology professor at the University of Cambridge, randomly assigned one of three responses to Minneapolis cops responding to misdemeanor domestic-violence incidents: they were required to arrest the assailant, to provide advice to both parties, or to send the assailant away for eight hours. The experiment showed a statistically significant lower rate of repeat calls for domestic violence for the mandatory-arrest group. The media and many politicians seized upon what seemed like a triumph for scientific knowledge, and mandatory arrest for domestic violence rapidly became a widespread practice in many large jurisdictions in the United States.

But sophisticated experimentalists understood that because of the issue’s high causal density, there would be hidden conditionals to the simple rule that “mandatory-arrest policies will reduce domestic violence.” The only way to unearth these conditionals was to conduct replications of the original experiment under a variety of conditions. Indeed, Sherman’s own analysis of the Minnesota study called for such replications. So researchers replicated the RFT six times in cities across the country. In three of those studies, the test groups exposed to the mandatory-arrest policy again experienced a lower rate of rearrest than the control groups did. But in the other three, the test groups had a higher rearrest rate.

Why? In 1992, Sherman surveyed the replications and concluded that in stable communities with high rates of employment, arrest shamed the perpetrators, who then became less likely to reoffend; in less stable communities with low rates of employment, arrest tended to anger the perpetrators, who would therefore be likely to become more violent. The problem with this kind of conclusion, though, is that because it is not itself the outcome of an experiment, it is subject to the same uncertainty that Aristotle’s observations were.

They just aren't succeeding yet.

Originally Posted By: TheInsane

As I read up on falsifiability I came across this interesting notion regarding Karl Popper. He said that for a theory to be scientific it has to be (1) falsifiable and (2) be confirmed by some kind of observation. The critique is however that this in itself is not something that can be falsifiable.

This is an important insight, I don't mean to dismiss it. But we must keep in mind that Popper is doing philosophy, not science. A parallel may be seen in the relationship between mathematics and physics.

There is a lot of abstract math that is completely useless so far and even demonstrably wrong. On the other hand, some of what seems value-free at first, ends up being terribly useful to the physicists. There were plenty of abstract conceptions of possible spaces around when Einstein sat down, but the only ones left when he went off to get a drink were Hilbert Space and the Lorentz Equations.

Popper's criterion of falsifiability has proven to be terribly useful in real science. It puts us in the position of working to disprove theories rather than prove them, which is good on multiple levels. Not only is logically impossible to "prove" a positive, but attempting to do so would cause us to focus on rhetorical skills and other forms of advanced lying, rather than experimentation and similar methods of finding the truth.

This is what has happened to the great psychologists, they know enough about how our mind works to effectively convince us that their models have some objective reality, when in fact they do not. As we have understood more and more about our actual brains and nervous systems, we talk less about abstract crap like the Id or the Anima, and more about the frontal lobes and corpus callosum, or endorphins and ephedrine.

...

Let's keep in mind where this started too. When something is presented as physics or chemistry, like auras and ectoplasm, but turns out to be primarily buzzwords for manipulating the mark, I say the psychology involved is what makes the magic being done a clear example of pseudoscience. Does anyone really disagree? If so, show your work.

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

The difference between hard and soft science would be the observational part ... Both fields apply the scientific method.

"Hard" (OU) science legitimately applies the scientific method, because OU-consistency is [to the extent of human experience] just that. The SM is a process for identifying such consistencies.

"Soft" science attempts to use the same SM to the study of human beings, and succeeds only to the extent that the subjects' behavior is conditioned and constrained by OU forces (geography, physical needs, physical threats, stimulus/response). It fails where spontaneous creativity/destructiveness and free/unconstrained choice generally (SU) are concerned. This is the Achilles' heel of "soft" science, and is why that term certainly cannot be applied to all human studies.

And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.

Funny thing is you questioned my stance on this before and I replied to you and you choose not to comment on it. Therefore I feel no need to elaborate on this again and I dont know why you ask me again. The post I made several months back is still here for anyone to see.

And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.

Funny thing is you questioned my stance on this before and I replied to you and you choose not to comment on it. Therefore I feel no need to elaborate on this again and I dont know why you ask me again. The post I made several months back is still here for anyone to see.

Once again it appears that TheInsane has not felt any discretionary option in the creation and expression of this response, but was inexorably compelled to it by natural laws predetermining every aspect of his/her existence. The secret is out: TheInsane is a Vulcan.

And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.

Funny thing is you questioned my stance on this before and I replied to you and you choose not to comment on it. Therefore I feel no need to elaborate on this again and I dont know why you ask me again. The post I made several months back is still here for anyone to see.

Once again it appears that TheInsane has not felt any discretionary option in the creation and expression of this response, but was inexorably compelled to it by natural laws predetermining every aspect of his/her existence. The secret is out: TheInsane is a Vulcan.

Haha

Had you read what I replied to you in the post I was refering to you would know that I am not a determinist either. I also discussed free will and the nature of conciousness in the recent thread created by HeimiricIX.

It would be more productive if you took your time to respond to the posts where I actually try to go into some detail about my thoughts and ideas instead of being ironic about posts where I say nothing about the subject at hand.

You can't have it both ways: Either you have free will or your thoughts are predetermined by something external to your consciousness, like Indiana Jones after he drank that unpleasant cocktail in Temple of Doom.

It is because the implications of individual/isolate free will are so Xeper that so many of the profane have fought so long and so hard to deny or at least distort it, indeed to the extent of torturing/killing anyone daring to affirm it. What do you think Satanism is really all about?

You can't have it both ways: Either you have free will or your thoughts are predetermined by something external to your consciousness, like Indiana Jones after he drank that unpleasant cocktail in Temple of Doom.

It is because the implications of individual/isolate free will are so Xeper that so many of the profane have fought so long and so hard to deny or at least distort it, indeed to the extent of torturing/killing anyone daring to affirm it. What do you think Satanism is really all about?

Again, take the time and read what I previously wrote and you will see my stance on it instead of making statements as the ones above. For being a doctor you sure as hell are stubborn to not take time to research who you are debating with despite repeated invitations to do so. Perhaps your conciousness is too isolated :P

As for what I consider Satanism to be all about I have explained that before as well.

Now Mr. if you took your time and read the following links perhaps you wouldnt have as many questions:

You will forgive me if I don't work that hard, there isn't really that much controversy in what I am saying.

I could be wrong though; I try to learn something new every day. Please introduce a "social science" that you feel has had sufficient range of experiment to falsify itself, and thoroughly failed to do so.

Another issue that comes into play here is HOW data is gathered in studying people.

This is a big issue and one that a lot of people don't understand.

If a "study" has data gathered not through observation but through "self-reported" data it is going to be a bunch of crap.

I'm a (very) amateur body builder that helps people traion to lose weight. If I rely on their word and not actual observation of what they eat, they either intentionally or unintentionally give me the wrong data.

If I only relied on self-reported data then I'd have 900 different diets that all seemed to work.

For some people. For some of the time.

When they actually grabbed people and put them in a lab, force-fed them the same measured amounts of food they saw that weight-loss was NOT genetic; it was entirely predictable with calories consumed versus calories burnt.

I also used to write three-dimensional facial recognition software for law enforcement. Worked with some really good sketch artists and they said "people's memories are terribe. The more time that elapses between the crime and when we get to interview them, the more likely they are to forget or EMBELISH data". Again either consciously or not.

This doesn't (usually) apply to hard sciences, but is the reason why sociology, psychology and what not are wrong so often, especially when "academic politics" come into play.

Another issue that comes into play here is HOW data is gathered in studying people.

Yes thanks, these are some great observations. Jake was giving another good example a bit earlier:

Originally Posted By: Jake999

Well... having handled numbers for years in a corporate setting, preparing budgets, analyzing expenditures, and predicting growth vs loss, I can tell you that numbers not only LIE, but a skillful handler can make them roll over and whistle Dixie.

I've done my share of internal reporting over the years, and I can confirm that numbers are even better than words for effective lying.

Real science has methodologies to deal with these problems though.

Originally Posted By: Jim Manzi

And as experiments began to move from fields like classical physics to fields like therapeutic biology, the number and complexity of potential causes of the outcome of interest—what I term “causal density”—rose substantially. It became difficult even to identify, never mind actually hold constant, all these causes. For example, how could an experimenter in 1800, when modern genetics remained undiscovered, possibly ensure that the subjects in the test group had the same genetic predisposition to a disease under study as those in the control group?

In 1884, the brilliant but erratic American polymath C. S. Peirce hit upon a solution when he randomly assigned participants to the test and control groups. Random assignment permits a medical experimentalist to conclude reliably that differences in outcome are caused by differences in treatment. That’s because even causal differences among individuals of which the experimentalist is unaware—say, that genetic predisposition—should be roughly equally distributed between the test and control groups, and therefore not bias the result.

And so on, the hard sciences are really intent on not lying to themselves, even accidentally. I don't see the same pressures in things like economics and politics, where a good lie is a solid paycheck.

(I have dug this article up in a public place now, along with a response, so people can see the context from which I'm speaking, if they wish. But keep in mind that there are journalists in this story, so if they were telling the truth they wouldn't necessarily know it.)

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

... if you took your time and read the following links perhaps you wouldnt have as many questions ...

I did read them previously, and just re-read them again per your request.

Altogether these certainly constitute an earnest and exhaustive argument that you (as a unique, isolate, and pure consciousness) don't in fact exist. This is, in a word, absurd - no matter how many equally-convoluted testimonials you collect in support of it. And we both know it is; otherwise this conversation could not exist either.

In medieval philosophy the term "scholasticism" refers to what might be summarized as "reasoned argument towards a predetermined conclusion". It was what Tom Aquino & al. resorted to in order to shore up Catholic dogma against the rediscovery of Aristotle, for instance. That's essentially what you're doing here - just with a different axiom to enshrine.

I do not say this to insult you, but you requested my public assessment. You are welcome to ignore it and plunge resolutely on. But I won't spend further time on it.

... if you took your time and read the following links perhaps you wouldnt have as many questions ...

I did read them previously, and just re-read them again per your request.

Altogether these certainly constitute an earnest and exhaustive argument that you (as a unique, isolate, and pure consciousness) don't in fact exist. This is, in a word, absurd - no matter how many equally-convoluted testimonials you collect in support of it. And we both know it is; otherwise this conversation could not exist either.

Well if you think that what I wrote was a testament of me not existing perhaps I expressed myself in the wrong terms. Or more likely you only see black and white (which you’ve proven time and time again). If one does not agree with your view of Self and Will then dammit you have to be part of the other extreme. Its not as easy as that.

I do not deny me existing (the liking to the wave I did in those posts should make that very clear). I do however deny the notion of Self atomism – isolate, unnatural, unchanging or pure (whatever word you may want to use for it). I do not deny me and indeed everything being unique however. So either you take some time reflecting over the notion and try to widen your horizon from the view of only two alternatives (Self or no-Self, no will or Free Will) or you can keep going acting ignorant and putting words in my mouth.

"Soft" science attempts to use the same SM to the study of human beings, and succeeds only to the extent that the subjects' behavior is conditioned and constrained by OU forces (geography, physical needs, physical threats, stimulus/response). It fails where spontaneous creativity/destructiveness and free/unconstrained choice generally (SU) are concerned. This is the Achilles' heel of "soft" science, and is why that term certainly cannot be applied to all human studies.

I disagree with the statement that the SM cannot be applied when it boils down towards human studies. As for an example in criminology, the free mind can leave trails of a certain pattern which on its turn can be investigated to finally catch the criminal. The unconstrained mind has always been limited to its exotic space inside the head. At a certain moment social pressure, morals and other limitations start kicking in.

Isn't it so with people you know, you can almost predict or have a vague idea how they are going to react in a certain situation? What they are going to answer when certain subjects are brought up? I know I can with most people I know. And it is thanks to a loosely application of the SM (T&E) in real life such things are possible.

If we can use the SM on behavioral traits of different plants and animals, why can't it be applied when it boils down towards Human Ecology.

"Soft" science attempts to use the same SM to the study of human beings, and succeeds only to the extent that the subjects' behavior is conditioned and constrained by OU forces (geography, physical needs, physical threats, stimulus/response). It fails where spontaneous creativity/destructiveness and free/unconstrained choice generally (SU) are concerned. This is the Achilles' heel of "soft" science, and is why that term certainly cannot be applied to all human studies.

... If we can use the SM on behavioral traits of different plants and animals, why can't it be applied when it boils down towards Human Ecology.

Let's start by explaining that term:

Originally Posted By: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. a branch of sociology dealing especially with the spatial and temporal interrelationships between humans and their economic, social, and political organization; 2. the ecology of human communities and populations especially as concerned with preservation of environmental quality (as of air or water) through proper application of conservation and civil engineering practices.

This is pretty fuzzy language. I would rather go back to my statement above: Each individual consciousness exists and is absolutely creative & discretionary as an essential aspect of this existence. Such creative & discretionary expressions are not subject to the SM for the simple reason that the SM functions to identify & codify OU regularities (which, in human experience, are universally constant & consistent).

The incarnate human consciousness, however, interfaces with the OU through the medium of a physical body whose displacement, functions, and senses are constrained by OU "natural law". TheInsane's position is thus understandable to the extent that it is often very difficult to distinguish one's authentically-discrete expression from one that is motivated or driven by OU influences. [Indeed many human expressions are a blend of both.]

Let us take the example of the proverbial pink elephant. The concept of an elephant and the color pink are OU phenomena, gathered through our physical/OU senses. However the imaginative creation of a pink elephant is a discretionary exercise in creation outside the OU, for the mere fun of it. This is a SU action [which, if we decide to share the fun, we can communicate through OU translation, as here].

It is as wrong to insist upon the independence of consciousness from external information as it is [as TheInsane does] to insist that it is merely a product of such information. Both exclusionist positions are ultimately agenda-driven, hence my reference to scholasticism. [Ironically, the creative imagination of an agenda (which is by definition not naturally/OU-compelled) is discretionary.]

You will remember, that the original question was whether it was good to have an argument. At this point you have seen some nice arguments. Did they do you any good? Was it beneficial to see ideas taken out of their boxes and put through their paces? Did some of them turn out to be compelling? Were others a lot more talk than actual walk?

In school the kids who argue against grading systems tend to be the brilliant underachievers, the ones making D's and F's whose IQ ought to "entitle" them to better. The people who want heavy internal criticism of their work and a strict scoring system are a lot more likely to be getting A's and B's. I'm going to characterize the people in the middle as C's, but I don't mean any insult by that. I want you making A's on the biggest test, the one that life throws you. I think a good way to move in that direction is to take anyone who thinks all opinions are equal with a ton of salt and maybe keep some buckshot on hand too.

But what do you think? Log in, or sign up, or whatever might be necessary, and make your opinion known. Vote 'A'!

(With special thanks to Lexi and Jason, for playing stereotypical roles with great panache; you guys are the Bomb!)

_________________________Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!